Page 113 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 113
s. dragoš ■ factors of radicalization
maintaining their respective monopolies in terms of the “protection of
compensators against their rebut. (ibid.: p. 300)
What was said about religion, applies, mutatis mutandis, also for other
forms of superior order of meaning. Modernisation has, if not com-
pletely abolished, at least made more difficult the maintenance of the
monopoly of locally constrained socially integrated systems of meaning
and values. (Berger & Luckmann, 1999: p. 32)
The boundaries of politics are always and necessarily highly contested of
the range of issues that can potentially be considered as political – from
the economy to the environment, and from morality to sex /…/ These
debates and challenges underscore the fact that an element of force is
always necessarily involved in politics. From this perspective, politics can
be conceived in the terms of Harold Lasswell’s book Politics: Who Gets
What, When, How (1936). (Turner, 2006: pp. 446–447)
Not accidentally, the fields of religion and politics, as described in
the above quotes, are so similar that we probably would not even notice
if somebody would mixed up the words and replaced “religion” with poli-
tics”, and vice versa – the definitions would still remain equally meaning-
ful. The historical differentiation of religion and politics towards specific
and autonomous9 systems, that we started to face half of millennium ago
in the West, does not mean in itself that these two fields of social regula-
tion have remained without a common core. Instead, both systems – poli-
tics and religion – are oriented to that which they have never surrendered:
they are specialised to operate with all three kinds of transcendences, i.e.,
with the small and medium, as well as large-scale.10 In relation to tran-
scendence, the differences between both fields in terms of the division of
labour only refer to the amount of the attention they attract:11 religion
mainly puts forward large transcendences, while politics focuses on the
ing to the explanations that are not easily susceptible to unambiguous valuation /…/ People
consider compensators in terms of rewards” (Stark & Bainbridge, 2007: p. 44).
9 Autonomy is the systems’ reaction towards the reduction of risk, as well as contingency and
complexity of the outer environment in which they operate. At the same time this is how
they create their own, new problems, for which only they can find appropriate solutions
(Luhmann, 1995: pp. 186, 204). One of these solutions is the interpenetration of systems (ibid.:
pp. 212–218) – however, it is in the case of the interpenetration of political and religious systems
that this strategy is the most theoretically vague, politically risky and legally constrained.
10 Transcendences are the basic building-blocks of meaning (as defined by Thomas Luckmann,
1997: pp. 109–112).
11 The degree of attention is institutionally regulated with positive and negative sanctions, or
with benefits and costs (as Stark & Bainbridge, 2007, would say).
111
maintaining their respective monopolies in terms of the “protection of
compensators against their rebut. (ibid.: p. 300)
What was said about religion, applies, mutatis mutandis, also for other
forms of superior order of meaning. Modernisation has, if not com-
pletely abolished, at least made more difficult the maintenance of the
monopoly of locally constrained socially integrated systems of meaning
and values. (Berger & Luckmann, 1999: p. 32)
The boundaries of politics are always and necessarily highly contested of
the range of issues that can potentially be considered as political – from
the economy to the environment, and from morality to sex /…/ These
debates and challenges underscore the fact that an element of force is
always necessarily involved in politics. From this perspective, politics can
be conceived in the terms of Harold Lasswell’s book Politics: Who Gets
What, When, How (1936). (Turner, 2006: pp. 446–447)
Not accidentally, the fields of religion and politics, as described in
the above quotes, are so similar that we probably would not even notice
if somebody would mixed up the words and replaced “religion” with poli-
tics”, and vice versa – the definitions would still remain equally meaning-
ful. The historical differentiation of religion and politics towards specific
and autonomous9 systems, that we started to face half of millennium ago
in the West, does not mean in itself that these two fields of social regula-
tion have remained without a common core. Instead, both systems – poli-
tics and religion – are oriented to that which they have never surrendered:
they are specialised to operate with all three kinds of transcendences, i.e.,
with the small and medium, as well as large-scale.10 In relation to tran-
scendence, the differences between both fields in terms of the division of
labour only refer to the amount of the attention they attract:11 religion
mainly puts forward large transcendences, while politics focuses on the
ing to the explanations that are not easily susceptible to unambiguous valuation /…/ People
consider compensators in terms of rewards” (Stark & Bainbridge, 2007: p. 44).
9 Autonomy is the systems’ reaction towards the reduction of risk, as well as contingency and
complexity of the outer environment in which they operate. At the same time this is how
they create their own, new problems, for which only they can find appropriate solutions
(Luhmann, 1995: pp. 186, 204). One of these solutions is the interpenetration of systems (ibid.:
pp. 212–218) – however, it is in the case of the interpenetration of political and religious systems
that this strategy is the most theoretically vague, politically risky and legally constrained.
10 Transcendences are the basic building-blocks of meaning (as defined by Thomas Luckmann,
1997: pp. 109–112).
11 The degree of attention is institutionally regulated with positive and negative sanctions, or
with benefits and costs (as Stark & Bainbridge, 2007, would say).
111
